Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [mythsoc] Re: The LR Second Edition

Expand Messages
  • Wayne G. Hammond
    ... To my knowledge, there are no papers concerning the second edition LR at Marquette. Christopher still has, at least, some of his father s check copies ,
    Message 1 of 8 , Jan 6, 2007
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      William Cloud Hicklin wrote:

      >In fact, CRT has over time (1987-98) shipped much if not all of
      >his manuscript material relating to Hobbit, LR and Farmer Giles
      >to Marquette. I don't think that legally includes the post-sale
      >revisions, but CRT apparently wants all the papers to reside
      >together.
      >
      >I have all the textual changes in Wayne's LR-RC, but that's not
      >exactly what I was asking. I was wondering if in Tolkien's own
      >mark-ups there is an indication how carefully he reviewed those
      >chapters, not whether he revised them (mostly he didn't). After
      >all, I'm evaluating a passage he *didn't* change.

      To my knowledge, there are no papers concerning the second edition LR at
      Marquette. Christopher still has, at least, some of his father's "check
      copies", i.e. copies of his works in which he marked corrections, while a
      few others have found their way into the secondhand market. But since
      Tolkien made no changes in the Bombadil episode for either the Ballantine
      or Allen & Unwin second editions (see, as John suggests, the Descriptive
      Bibliography of 1993 rather than the Reader's Companion for a fuller
      accounting of LR textual changes), one would suppose that he felt that it
      was fine as it was, and that no workings would be found in Christopher's
      possession.

      Wayne




      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • William Cloud Hicklin
      Thaks, Wayne. A qustion on a trivial matter: what is the correct name for that edition? On my 1965 H-M (Quackenbush covers), the title page reads Second
      Message 2 of 8 , Jan 6, 2007
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        Thaks, Wayne.

        A qustion on a trivial matter: what is the "correct" name for
        that edition?

        On my "1965" H-M (Quackenbush covers), the title page reads
        "Second Edition," the dustjacket reads "Revised Edition," and
        the front flap reads "Second Edition, Revised!"

        --- In mythsoc@yahoogroups.com, "Wayne G.
        Hammond" <Wayne.G.Hammond@...> wrote:
        >
        > William Cloud Hicklin wrote:
        >
        > >In fact, CRT has over time (1987-98) shipped much if not
        all of
        > >his manuscript material relating to Hobbit, LR and Farmer
        Giles
        > >to Marquette. I don't think that legally includes the post-
        sale
        > >revisions, but CRT apparently wants all the papers to reside
        > >together.
        > >
        > >I have all the textual changes in Wayne's LR-RC, but that's
        not
        > >exactly what I was asking. I was wondering if in Tolkien's
        own
        > >mark-ups there is an indication how carefully he reviewed
        those
        > >chapters, not whether he revised them (mostly he didn't).
        After
        > >all, I'm evaluating a passage he *didn't* change.
        >
        > To my knowledge, there are no papers concerning the second
        edition LR at
        > Marquette. Christopher still has, at least, some of his
        father's "check
        > copies", i.e. copies of his works in which he marked
        corrections, while a
        > few others have found their way into the secondhand market.
        But since
        > Tolkien made no changes in the Bombadil episode for either
        the Ballantine
        > or Allen & Unwin second editions (see, as John suggests, the
        Descriptive
        > Bibliography of 1993 rather than the Reader's Companion for
        a fuller
        > accounting of LR textual changes), one would suppose that he
        felt that it
        > was fine as it was, and that no workings would be found in
        Christopher's
        > possession.
        >
        > Wayne
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
      • William Cloud Hicklin
        ... As well as thanks. :)
        Message 3 of 8 , Jan 6, 2007
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In mythsoc@yahoogroups.com, "William Cloud
          Hicklin" <solicitr@...> wrote:
          >
          >
          >
          > Thaks, Wayne.

          As well as thanks. :)
        • Wayne G. Hammond
          ... There s no one correct name for it. In the Descriptive Bibliography I call it the second Houghton Mifflin edition , as distinct from the second Allen &
          Message 4 of 8 , Jan 7, 2007
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            William Cloud Hicklin wrote:

            >A question on a trivial matter: what is the "correct" name for
            >that edition?
            >
            >On my "1965" H-M (Quackenbush covers), the title page reads
            >"Second Edition," the dustjacket reads "Revised Edition," and
            >the front flap reads "Second Edition, Revised!"

            There's no one "correct" name for it. In the Descriptive Bibliography I
            call it the "second Houghton Mifflin edition", as distinct from the "second
            Allen & Unwin edition", the Ballantine "revised edition", etc., and because
            "second edition" in the tortuous publication history of The Lord of the
            Rings could mean not only any one of these, but also the Ace Books edition
            (a new typesetting except for the Appendices) and even the Allen & Unwin
            Fellowship from the (reset) "second printing" onward.

            The trick in all this is to distinguish "edition" in bibliographical terms
            (a wholly or substantially new typesetting) from "edition" in publishers'
            terms (any kind of marketing construct) and from "edition" in the textual
            sense, as when we refer to the "first edition text" and "second edition
            text" of LR.

            Wayne




            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • William Cloud Hicklin
            ... edition ... Okay-- but then (just to keep things confusing)- even in this third (authorial) definition, which I think is the operative one, can we
            Message 5 of 8 , Jan 7, 2007
            View Source
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In mythsoc@yahoogroups.com, "Wayne G.
              Hammond" <Wayne.G.Hammond@...> wrote:

              > and from "edition" in the textual
              > sense, as when we refer to the "first edition text" and "second
              edition
              > text" of LR.
              >


              Okay-- but then (just to keep things confusing)- even in this
              third (authorial) definition, which I think is the operative one,
              can we meaningfully define the ur-Second Edition as "what Tolkien
              intended in 1965"? Or do the many errors that persisted, and
              CRT's periodic "consistency" emendations, obviate such a
              definition? And is it sensible to refer to the first Anderson as
              the "3rd Edition" and your 50th as the "4th Edition", in the same
              way that one hears of the "4th Edition" Hobbit- texts attempting
              to restore a theoretical pre-existing state, rather than create a
              new state?
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.